Talk:Zionism#Revert

This claim that appears in the "The Peel Commission transfer proposal" section is based on a heavily truncated quote from Jabotinsky's book "The Jewish War Front", published in 1940, after the outbreak of WWII, and grossly misrepresents Jabotinsky's actual attitude towards the idea of population transfer.

First of all, for most of his life Jabotinsky vehemently opposed this idea, including as late as 1937, after it was proposed by the Peel Commission.{{cite journal | last = Rubin | first = Gil S. | title = Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine | journal = The Historical Journal | volume = 62 | issue = 2 | page=12 | date = June 2019 | url = https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/abs/vladimir-jabotinsky-and-population-transfers-between-eastern-europe-and-palestine/1F25EEAD71D1AD4B1375A6F32A84CB34 |quote=...Jabotinsky also rejected the [partition] plan on moral grounds, fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine. Jabotinsky underscored this point in several letters and speeches from 1937, and expanded on it in an article published in the Revisionist Zionist publication Hayarden...
Jabotinsky could not have been more clear about his opposition to transferring a single Arab from Palestine. He also argued that the Peel Commission drew the wrong lesson from the Greek–Turkish case. It was not a ‘great precedent’, as the commission noted in its report, but a tragedy that involved the expulsion of one million Greeks from Turkey.}}{{Cite book |last=Shumsky |first=Dmitry |url=https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300230130/beyond-the-nation-state/ |title=Beyond the Nation-State |publisher=Yale University Press |language=en-US |year=2018|page=230|quote=When the Peel Commission published its recommendation to partition Palestine on the basis of nationality through ethnic unification, Jabotinsky was horrified; he immediately recognized that the recommendations were based on the logic of ethnic cleansing. He not only opposed the plan because it would mean losing parts of the Land of Israel; he opposed it because he feared that expelling the Arabs from the Jewish state might serve what he sarcastically referred to as an “instructive precedent,” a boon for all those who sought to undermine the right to exist of the diasporic Jewish collectivities.}}

Second, while his opposition to population transfer weakened towards 1940, he still insisted that it would be "undesirable from many perspectives" and only considered the option of voluntary transfer.{{Cite journal |last=Shilon |first=Avi |date=February 8, 2021 |title=The Jabotinsky Paradox |url=https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2021/08/the-jabotinsky-paradox/ |journal=Mosaic |access-date=February 14, 2025 |quote=...in his last book, The Jewish War Front, Jabotinsky did not rule out the possibility of population transfer—that is, expulsion of Arabs. The book was published in 1940, shortly before his death, and was written in the gloomy context of World War II:
'I see no need for this exodus, and it would be undesirable from many perspectives. But if it becomes clear that the Arabs prefer to emigrate, this may be discussed without a trace of sorrow in the heart.'}}{{cite book | last = Schechtman | first = Joseph B. | title = The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story: Fighter and Prophet | publisher = Thomas Yoseloff | year = 1956 |quote =In his last book... he fully endorsed the idea of a voluntary Arab transfer from Palestine, though still insisting that it was not mandatory since, objectively, "Palestine, astride the Jordan, has room for the million of Arabs, room for another million of their eventual progeny, for several million Jews, and for peace."}}

Finally, this change of heart was not "inspired by Nazi demographic policies", but was primarily driven by the worsening conditions of European Jewry and the urgent need to find a solution for the large number of Jewish refugees. Additionally, he noted that the idea of population transfer was gaining increased support at the time, including from U.S. President Roosevelt.{{harvnb|Rubin|2019|p=16}}: "Jabotinsky’s change of heart was first and foremost a result of his predictions regarding the enormity of the Jewish refugee problem in Europe after the war. Jabotinsky concluded that the aftermath of the war would necessitate a far more radical emigration plan than he had previously envisioned – millions of Jews would have to be transferred to Palestine within a few short years...
Jabotinsky’s wartime embrace of population transfers was also a result of his predictions regarding the future ethnic make-up of Europe after the war. On the eve of the war, Jabotinsky was startled by the degree of support population transfers had come to enjoy among liberals and fascist alike; after the outbreak of war, he noted that it had become even more popular, winning the support of US President Roosevelt who spoke about the need for the post-war resettlement of millions of refugees." The cherry-picked quote mentioning Hitler appears in Jabotinsky's book within a broader discussion based on his observation that {{tq|"the idea of redistributing minorities en masse is becoming more popular among 'the best people' and there is no longer any taboo on the discussion of the subject."}}{{cite book | last = Jabotinsky | first = Vladimir | title = The War and the Jew | year = 1942 | orig-year=Originally published in 1940 as The Jewish War Front| pages=218-222 | url=https://archive.org/details/warandthejew009960mbp/page/n221/mode/2up }}

Consequently, I suggest removing this misleading passage.

{{collapse top|title=References}}

{{Reflist-talk}}

{{collapse bottom}} DancingOwl (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I dont think the passage contradicts what you're saying here:

:# He drew inspiration from similar policies in the 20th century

:# He sees the world as accommodating to population transfer schemes, with particular reference to hitler who gave it a 'good name'

:DMH223344 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think your description is much more accurate than how it's currently phrased in the article - the reference to Hitler is just one example he uses to demonstrate that the world is accommodating to population transfer idea, and framing Hitler's "demographic policies" as the reason for Zhabotinsky's change of heart is highly misleading. Not to mention that this phrasing omits the fact that he still considered population transfer 'undesirable from many perspectives,' and that his primary reason for being willing to consider it was the dire condition of European Jews following the outbreak of World War II. DancingOwl (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Just adding a dummy comment to prevent the bot from archiving this topic again DancingOwl (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::@DancingOwl, an alternative to removing this passage is contextualising it by adding the sources you've mentioned here. Currently only Finkelstein's viewpoint is represented in the article. To satisfy WP:NPOV we have to provide a balanced coverage, something along the lines of

::{{cquote|Vladimir Jabotinsky rejected the 1937 Peel Commission's partition plan and condemning it as "ethnic cleansing." However, in his final 1940 book amid World War II, his position evolved to accept the possibility of voluntary Arab emigration—a shift linked to his growing concern about Jewish refugees in Europe and the increasing international acceptance of population transfers.}}

::Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, the paragraph that precedes this passage already contains a statement that is very similar to what you suggest:

:::{{tq2|It was the right wing of the Zionist movement that put forward the main arguments against transfer, with Jabotinsky strongly objecting it on moral grounds, and others mainly focusing on its impracticality. However, in his last book "The Jewish War Front" published in 1940, after the outbreak of WWII, Jabotinsky no longer ruled out the possibility of voluntary population transfer, though he still didn't view as a necessary solution.}}

:::The only things that is missing there is the {{tq|"a shift linked to his growing concern about Jewish refugees in Europe and the increasing international acceptance of population transfers"}} part, which is indeed an important part of the context that we can add to that text. DancingOwl (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with @DMH223344 – the quote you've quoted agrees with the framing in the article, I don't think it needs to be removed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I quoted two authors - Shilon and Shechtman - neither of those quotes support the framing that Jabotinsky {{tq|"drew inspiration from the Nazi demographic policies"}}. DancingOwl (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I support the edit DancingOwl is proposing. Relying on Finkelstein (2016), a highly polemical and not very scholarly book, skews the interpretation, and it would be better to go with how scholarly sources present this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::I also agree with @DMH223344 and @Smallangryplanet that the quote should stay as is. The Finkelstein source meets RS, and subjective claims about its "polemical" or "not very scholarly" nature are not relevant. It is from a subject-matter expert and a reputable publisher. Moreover the claim that Jabotinsky was solely inspired by practical and moral concerns to support the ethnic cleansing of Arab Palestinians is not true, and it is not only Finkelstein who notes this. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41857736 Madeleine Tress] (e.g. pages 317, 320) notes that these practical/moral concerns were merely a "convenient excuse", and that a racist and supremacist view inspired by fascists like Hitler and Mussolini undergirded his support for the ethnic cleansing. [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Iron_Cage.html?id=nnxtAAAAMAAJ Rashid Khalidi] has made the same point in reference to his inspiration by Stalin's mass expulsions (page 187), quoting him: "There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." There is ample sourcing for this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Finkelstein is not an historian but an activist. He was fired from his university. It is not a RS at all. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It seems there is no consensus for this contentious paragraph in its current state with a single source. I’d add that the “later” is vague. I’m going to remove it, and suggest that those who think a version of it should be here propose some wording and sourcing that resolves the issues. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Editors who think it’s important can check if it is in Jabotinsky’s own article where a longer discussion of the quote might be appropriate. It is not significant in an article about Zionism in general BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please do not remove RS content that has been stable on the page when you do not have consensus to remove it, especially when it has been pointed out to you in talk that other RS also support it. If you want those additional sources to be added to it as well, that can be done, but removing it entirely is wholly unwarranted. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::So my removal was immediately reverted on the basis of no consensus for removal. It’s a vague and contentious passage based on a weak source that an equal number of editors have opposed. I think onus should be on those supporting inclusion to make the case and provide decent sourcing BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your case that the source for that long-standing content is not "decent" is not based on policy. The book is published by a reputable academic publisher, the scholar is a subject-matter expert, and I provided additional RS that also back up the content of it. And yes, you did not gain consensus for its removal.

::::::But since you insist that the sourcing for the claim that Jabotinsky's inspiration by authoritarian ethnic cleansing demographic policies is weak as it stands, we can add the Tress and Khalidi sources and expand the passage. What do you think about this:

::::::"Later, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the right-wing Zionist leader, drew inspiration from the demographic policies of Stalin, Mussolini and the Nazis, the latter of which resulted in the expulsion of 1.5 million Poles and Jews, in whose place Germans resettled.[204]

::::::In Jabotinsky's assessment: The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world.[204]" Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with Rev and others that Finkelstein is RS and the material from Jabotinsky that he quotes is worth including in the article in some form. However, I agree with DancingOwl and you that the language used in our article could and probably should be changed. I don't think the quote cited here supports the current phrasing that Jabotinsky "took inspiration". Unless Finkelstein himself makes this claim and backs it up further in the source, or if there is other support for this interpretation, I think the material should be rewritten and contextualized with what other sources say. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And even if Finkelstein does say it, and even if he is a reliable source, this is clearly an interpretation, and an obviously controversial interpretation, so I don’t think we should just say it in our voice, but attribute that interpretation to him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you {{u|Raskolnikov.Rev}} for this proposal. I could probably live with that much more, although I still think “drew inspiration” is an over-interpretation, especially in light of the actual quotations in the thread below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Great to hear. The quotations presented below are not the relevant ones for that claim. Unfortunately I only have a version of the Tress article that has a faulty OCR so I will have to transcribe the relevant ones by hand. I will add those as soon as I can get to them over the next few days. It is also not the case that the Khalidi source does not have additional backing. I will present that too.

::::::::Regarding the language of "inspiration", I will reflect on that on the basis of the language used in the sources, and perhaps something else might be more appropriate for accuracy. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just a heads up to @Bobfrombrockley and others that I'm still working on this. I am going through all the sources in this section and am almost done with a response addressing everything, should be ready in the next few days. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Tres literally says that {{tq|Jabotinsky rejected expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs}} and her reference to Mussolini-Hitler's pact is based on Schechtman's book I quoted above, in which he says:

:::{{Tq2|On June 23, 1939, an agreement was signed between the Third Reich and Mussolini's Italy, providing for the voluntary transfer to the Reich of the 266,000 Germans from the Italian Southern Tirol... Jabotinsky was strongly impressed by this move. It reminded him of a talk he had... with the noted Anglo-Jewish writer and thinker, Israel Zangwill... In an article "A Talk With Zangwill", published late in July, 1939, Jabotinsky restated his objections to Zangwill's reasoning which, he admitted, might be logical, but was too far removed from his own conceptions. But the German-Italian transfer agreement seems to have made "one thing clear" to him : that "a precedent has been created here which the world will note and not forget, and this precedent may perhaps be fated to play an important role in our Jewish history as well?'" In his last book The War and the Jew, he fully endorsed the idea of a voluntary Arab transfer from Palestine, though still insisting that it was not mandatory since, objectively, "Palestine, astride the Jordan, has room for the million of Arabs, room for another million of their eventual progeny, for several million Jews, and for peace."}} DancingOwl (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And Khalidi is quoting Masalha, who in turn quotes this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/02/07/expelling-palestinians/a54c4262-ec35-4f20-a705-f47aa18d72db/ 1988 opinion article from Washington Post] that says the following:

::::{{Tq2|The Labor Zionists, influenced by the huge population transfers in Europe after World War I, believed that financial incentives would suffice. The conservative Zionist leader, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, also supported the idea. In November 1939, he wrote in a letter to one of his party members: "We should instruct American Jewry to mobilize half a billion dollars in order that Iraq and Saudi Arabia will absorb the Palestinian Arabs. There is no choice: The Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs."}}

::::So

::::# Jabotinsky is talking about voluntary transfer based on financial incentives

::::# He's referring to the transfer of ethnic Germans from the Baltics to German-occupied areas that started in October 1939 (Soviet annexation of Baltic state took place half a year later, in 1940, so in November 1939 he could not possibly refer to Stalin's deportations from the Baltic states).

::::Also, it's worth mentioning that this opinion article seems to be the only source of this alleged quote - I couldn't locate it in any other source - either in English or in Hebrew - so I'm not sure how reliable it is, to beging with. DancingOwl (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the quotes. In my opinion, the second one refers not to the voluntary transfer of the 266,000 Germans from Italy's South Tyrol to the Reich, but more likely to the population exchange between Greece and Turkey around 1925, in the aftermath of World War I. This makes the sentence "Later, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the right-wing Zionist leader, drew inspiration from the Nazi demographic policies that resulted in the expulsion of 1.5 million Poles and Jews, in whose place Germans resettled. In Jabotinsky's assessment" even more controversial. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: This use of "inspiration" – and naming specific Nazi policies and practices which seem at odds with the rest of his writing — looks like original research. I removed the current wording and quote, which is provocative but not helpful out of context. A better place to add color on Jabotinsky's views would be immediately after the previous sentence about the evolution of his thoughts, which has a trio of better sources. – SJ + 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::seems a clear case of a WP:SYNTH violation to make a rather hefty and unsupported claim SecretName101 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we can ignore Finkelstein, since he is just quoting from Segev "One Palestine, Complete". Segev quotes it from Moshe Sharett's political diary. Another point to make is that Jabotinsky's public support for "voluntary" transfer from Palestine is predicated on "Palestine" including Jordan. Zero^talk 03:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Could you please quote from Moshe Sharett's political diary? So we can improve the text. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't have it. Segev's citation is "Sharett, Political Diary, vol. IV, p. 376." This is a Hebrew publication of Am Oved, 1974. Zero^talk 02:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So could you share Segev’s full quote on the topic? Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{tq2|During the 1940s the idea of transfer continued to circulate in the Zionist movement, bolstered by discussions at the outbreak of World War II about mass population transfers in territories occupied by the German army. "The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them," Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote, adding that "Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world."}} (pages 406–407) Segev has several pages on the transfer idea, referring to quite a few prominent Zionists. Zero^talk 12:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Since secondary sources are generally preferred over primary and tertiary ones on Wikipedia, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to use this quote from Segev instead of the one from Finkelstein? Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Zero and Boutboul, I added this ref to Segev after the existing sentence, which could be expanded. – SJ + 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Zero0000 that quote does not attribute Zionist inspiration from Hitler though, it talks about Hitler’s impact on international discourse among non-Zionists SecretName101 (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that a brief topic relating to the usage of Zionism as a pejorative would be a useful sub-topic. It is widely used both by the far-right and the far left and has become sufficiently widespread to warrant mention. The topic already has an article on Wikipedia: Zionist as a pejorative.

A few sources describing the usage of this pejorative:

• In the Arab press, according to {{harvnb|Litvak|2011|}}: "Prior to the 1967 war, caricatures in the Arab press tended to present Israel and Israelis as weak, miserable and despicable creatures who were about to be punished by the proud, self-confident Arabs. After the 1967 defeat, the Israeli image changed to menacing, brutal and aggressive Nazi-type oppressors. This change partly reflected the impact of Soviet propaganda, but was mainly part of process that transformed the image of Israel from a weakling into a bully threatening the entire Middle East, and from David to Goliath. Another common practice of these equations is the increasing use since the 1980s of the terms “Judeo-Nazi” (Yahu-nazi) or “Zionazi” (Sahyu-nazi)"
• Contemporary usage amongst anti-Zionsts in {{harvnb|Graizbord|2020|p=55}}: "Anti-Zionists often refer to Jews and non-Jews who are in favor of the pemanent existence of the Jewish nation-state, but have no particular desire to live there, as "Zionists." The meaning of this last usage is usually pejorative (in the United Kingdom, the recently coined variant "Zio," is always an insult)."
• Contemporary usage amongst anti-Semites {{harv|Penslar|2023}}: "In contrast, the use of the word "Zionist" as a pejorative to describe Jews as a whole, and to attribute malevolent qualities to them, is widespread."
  Later, he writes about the derived terms: "Antisemitic language took on a new dimension at the end of the 1980s. Writers on the Far Right began to use “Zio” as a pejorative for “Jew.” At first, it was connected with “Nazi” to form “ZioNazi,” a hostile reference to the state of Israel and its supporters. Over the course of the early twenty-first century, however, “Zio” broke away from specific links to Zionism or Israel and became a derogatory term for all Jews. The broader use of the term was popu lar ized by David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and member of the Louisiana State House of Representatives. “Zio” was frequently linked with a second noun or adjective by way of a hyphen, endowing that word with what are thought to be irradicable and noxious Jewish qualities (e.g., “Zio-Marxists,” “Zio-economics,” “Zio-media,” “Zio-feminists”). In 2015, a Canadian antisemitic monthly newspaper, commenting on then-prime minister Stephen Harper’s support for Israel, bemoaned that he had been “co-opted by Canadian ZioFascists with their eyes set on turning Canada into a ZioMarxist vassal state.” The same Canadian monthly also accused Israel of plotting the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and claimed that a “rich Zionist Jew Larry Silverstein had just bought the World Trade Center and took out a massive insurance policy” shortly before the attacks."
• History of the term "Zio" by the far-right and far-left {{harv|Samuels|2017}}: "Anti-Semitism linked to “Zio” can be traced back to the late 1980s ... “Zio,” however, didn’t become a common anti-Semitic slur until Duke made it famous over the past decade. While the term was generally used by white supremacists early in the decade, the term has gained traction on the far left in recent years, especially in Britain."

We have the phenomenon of the "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG) conspiracy theory, which has been current in far-right circles since the Turner Diaries.

This is certainly a notable and relevant topic, certainly as much as some of the other sub-sections here. I therefore argue that a small sub-section summarizing these points and pointing the main article is a desideratum.

----

• {{cite book |last1=Graizbord |first1=David L. |title=The new Zionists: young American Jews, Jewish national identity, and Israel |date=2020 |publisher=Lexington Books, An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc |location=Lanham, Maryland |isbn=9781498580465}}
• {{cite book |last1=Litvak |first1=Meʾir |title=From empathy to denial: Arab responses to the Holocaust |last2=Vebman |first2=Ester |date=2009 |publisher=Hurst |isbn=9781849041553 |edition=1. publ |location=London}}
• {{cite news |last1=Samuels |first1=Ben |date=Jul 18, 2017 |title='Violent History' of 'Zio': How Chicago's Dyke March Adopted an anti-Semitic Slur Dear to White Supremacists |url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-07-18/ty-article/.premium/how-chicagos-dyke-march-adopted-an-anti-semitic-slur-dear-to-far-righists/0000017f-e308-d804-ad7f-f3facfd10000 |work=Haaretz}}

אקעגן (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|The topic already has an article on Wikipedia|q=yes}} that's even more of a reason not to create a POV fork. As for the claim that it's "used by antisemites against Jews" (that you presented as a fact), let's just say that it's just an extraordinary claim by some Israelis. M.Bitton (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Huh? Not only does this reply completely ignore the sources cited above, but since when does the nationality of the source matter? That's completely inappropriate. Longhornsg (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not only does this reply completely ignore what I wrote, but it cherry picks the least important part (for reasons that I cannot comprehend). M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Virtually all the sections/sub-sections have links to main articles. What is the relevance of how surprising it may or may not be to Israelis? אקעגן (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Did you miss the part about what you presented as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, it is so presented in the sources I provided. The term "Zionist" is sometimes used as an anti-Semitic pejorative term, and sometimes it isn't. Is there some reason you think this isn't the case? אקעגן (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just so I understand, is the argument that this article should include a brief summary of the Zionist as a pejorative article to replace the link in the see also section? That article could do with some work. As the NYT reporting found, ([https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/style/jewish-college-students-zionism-israel.html 'On Campus, a New Social Litmus Test: Zionist or Not?']), there is a complicated dynamic at the moment that goes both ways - "black-or-white pressures — to remove anti-Zionists from some Jewish communities, and to remove Zionists from parts of campus life — seem likely to shrink a middle ground where people with fiercely differing beliefs can learn from one another." Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is what I was thinking. The term "Zionist", along with it's derivatives, are widespread enough as pejoratives, even outside the context of Israel-Palestine (e.g., the far right usage), to warrant a short summary in my view. אקעגן (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The statement by the head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center in Washington (affiliated with the Qatar based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies) was also interesting in the context of Zionism as a pejorative - "...the problem is Zionism and what it's meant to Palestinians. That's going to put people in the Jewish community who are dealing with these tensions in an uncomfortable situation. They're going to be asked to pick between a commitment to justice and a commitment to Zionism." Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:This article is about "Zionism", not "Zionist as a pejorative". I concur with M.Bitton above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I contend that "Zionist as a pejorative" is ipso facto about Zionism, just as "anti-Zionism" or "Hindu support of Zionism" are, for example, about Zionism. אקעגן (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The article Zionist as a pejorative doesn't even have a clearly defined scope. It's a lazy POV coatrack. The introductory sentence, {{tq|"Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel}}, is not supported by any quality source and treats three different terms as if they were the same. إيان (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Is this, in your view, a coatrack since it joins these terms into one article? Since they are all of identical derivation, with very similar ideological thrusts, I think a single unifying article is appropriate. At any rate, the sources I presented above should satisfy your desire of at least a basis of good references, and could easily be added into the article "Zionist as a pejorative," if this is your main objection. אקעגן (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Of identical derivation|q=y}} is meaningless; fascism and fajita are of {{tq|identical derivation|q=y}}. That the terms 'Zionist,' 'Zionazi,' and 'Zio' represent {{tq|very similar ideological thrusts|q=y}} is a POV that is not supported by scholarly sources.

:::::It's a coatrack because it's not a cohesive topic and it has no central scope established by reliable sources; it's a POV OR agglomeration of separate things that elides their distinctions in order to advance a particular POV. إيان (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's not meaningless when the terms are near-synonyms. "Zio", "Zionazi," and (sometimes) "Zionist" are all intended as attacks directed towards Zionists, Israelis, or Jews, as I have demonstrated above. In this light, I cannot accept your statement that their relationship is "POV that is not supported by scholarly sources." There are subtleties between the words, but they are all quite related. אקעגן (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: "Zionazi" is not a near synonym of "Zionist." Good grief. (I've never come across "Zio" in a pejorative or any other sense. But I have led a sheltered life.)Dan Murphy (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::It can be, depending on the context. When Hamas uses the term "Zionist" in their charter, I would argue it carries the same pejorative force as "Zionazi," or "Nazi." They make the link explicit, in some cases, in expressions like this, from their charter:

::* The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long.

::* In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children.

::So when I read other statements like the following, I don't think the term "Zionist" can easily be understood as being a "softer" pejorative than "Zionazi":

::* The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates.

::* The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

::אקעגן (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I added some more quotes from Penslar that I hope are illustrative. I will add that he further quotes an anti-Semitic newspaper which calls Israelis “bloodthirsty Talmudic Zionist Jews.” Changing "Zionist" to "Zionazi" in a sentence like this would not change the sense of it one iota. אקעגן (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg

| result = There is a moratorium on [a]ll discussion about editing, removing, or replacing "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." Please refer to Special:PermanentLink/1276887484#Moratorium_proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello,

I would like to propose reverting the version of the article "Zionism" as it appeared prior to October 7, 2023. For example, this version from 29 January 2023:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1117721171

Recent edits may have significantly altered the tone and neutrality of the article, including removal or reframing of historically and factually supported content. I believe that version offered a more balanced representation, particularly in describing the historical background of Zionism, its relation to Jewish self-determination, and the context of antisemitism — which now appear to be diminished or excluded.

I understand that content disputes should be discussed constructively, so I welcome feedback and collaboration on how to proceed fairly and according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you 79.177.158.113 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Completely agree with this request. The moratorium violates WP:CCC in the worst way. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::and solidifies the impact of now topic-banned editors and tag teaming that dominated the shift in POV from NPOV to what we have now. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agree! Please restore the original version, as the current version is incredibly flawed and highly offensive. 2601:5CC:4600:2370:511D:B6C3:FC56:A915 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::@TarnishedPath Having just collapsed several requests of this nature, would you agree that there is a desire in the wikipedia community to revisit this, noting that WP:CCC? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Allthemilescombined1, Given the differences in the first paragraph of the version that is being proposed to restore to, this is covered by the moratorium. I will thus be closing this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Special:PermanentLink/1276887484#Moratorium_proposal TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Edit extended-protected|Zionism|answered=yes}}

The definition that Zionism is designed to have "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is false, both to modern interpretations of the definition and Theodor Herzl's, 'Der Judenstaat.'

Zionism is defined as both a nationalist movement, and a belief that the Jewish people have a right to create a nation-state in their ancestral land. The Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) definition of Zionism; "Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel....Zionism does not preclude support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood." The ADL is an internationally-recognised expert organisation on Jewish culture, politics, and Zionism.

It is my belief that the addition of 'anti-Palestinian' rhetoric has been added to the public definition of Zionism due to political motives. The cited works which directly attack Zionism as an "anti-Palestinian" objective, "Nakba and Survival: The Story of Palestinians Who Remained in Haifa and the Galilee, 1948–1956", are NOT a credible source. The book is written in a perspective of irrefutable bias from identified radical activists and terrorists sympathisers. The GREATER international view of this source, is that it is incredibly biased and generally offers opinion, rather than fact.

As Wikipedia is seen as a major knowledge database for the world, the dangers of validating and support such disinformation are vast. I implore you to remove "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". Samrazb7 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: this is neither an uncontroversial improvement, nor a proposed change that is already supported by consensus. Please read WP:EDITXY. M.Bitton (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I have a question, why is there no mention of the name :Bilad al-Sham on the whole article? This is part of the historical naming aspect from another perspective. I am more curious why there is no mention. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Zionism|answered=yes}}

This note is incorrect and is not supported by its source:

Zionism belongs to the category of ethnocultural nationalism, according to which groups sharing a common history and culture have fundamental and morally significant interests in adhering to their culture and in sustaining it for generations. Cultural nationalism holds that such interests warrant political recognition and support, primarily by the means of granting the groups in question the right to national self-determination or self-rule.

Source: Gans, Chaim (2008). A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534068-6.

It is not stated anywhere in Gans that Zionism belongs to "ethnocultural nationalism," in any way. This is an unvalidated quote, is unacademic, and must be removed.

Therefore the very first sentence of this page is factually unsupported and must be removed.

In fact, the entire article is replete with fallacy. I have spot-checked the first 10 references, and NONE of them contain supporting evidence for their corresponding passages in the article.

Since the supporting bibliography and its quotes are unambiguously fabricated, this entire page must be rewritten. If this were an academic article, whoever wrote it would be removed from their university and their title stripped from them. 136.31.194.40 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Out of interest, what confidence level (in percent) would you assign to your assessment? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}:It's literally on page 3 underneath the title "Introduction". It is a wonder you would make such a passionate comment about bad sourcing when it was so easy to verify.

:I hope you aren't grading anyone's papers with such absent research skills. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's kind of amazing isn't it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)